Filed: Feb. 02, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1992 In re: SCOTT E. LUELLEN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:08-cr-00102-LO-1; 1:09-cv-00681-LO) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott E. Luellen, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Scott E. Luellen petitions for a writ of
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1992 In re: SCOTT E. LUELLEN, Petitioner. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:08-cr-00102-LO-1; 1:09-cv-00681-LO) Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Scott E. Luellen, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Scott E. Luellen petitions for a writ of m..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1992
In re: SCOTT E. LUELLEN,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.
(1:08-cr-00102-LO-1; 1:09-cv-00681-LO)
Submitted: January 31, 2012 Decided: February 2, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott E. Luellen, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Scott E. Luellen petitions for a writ of mandamus,
alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28
U.S.C.A § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The district court has
now ruled on Luellen’s § 2255 motion. Thus, we find that
Luellen’s petition alleging delay is moot. Accordingly, we deny
the mandamus petition. We grant Luellen’s motions to file an
oversize brief and to proceed in forma pauperis, and deny his
motions for a transcript at Government expense, for a
certificate of appealability, to amend/correct his mandamus
petition, and to clarify. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
2